9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant should have given the correct address, atleast, in this appeal - There was no error in the order of the Tribunal in dismissing the appeal of the appellant on the ground of delay, which was not sufficiently explained - The grounds raised in the appeal do not raise any substantial questions of law to be considered in the appeal – Decided against Petitioner. - Central Excise Appeal No. 114 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 25-7-2012 - Sunil Ambwani and Aditya Nath Mittal, JJ. Shri Suyash Agarwal and R.R. Agrawal, Counsel, for the Petitioner. Shri A.K. Nigam, ASC, K.C. Sinha and S.P. Kesarwani, Counsels, for the Respondent. ORDER We have heard Sri Suyash Agarwal for the appellant. Sri S.P. Kesarwani appears for the respondents. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ays in filing the appeal was due to sickness of the Managing Director, 5. Sri Suyash Agarwal has relied upon decisions in Collector, Land Acquisition v. M/s. Katiji Others [1987 UPTC 2128]; Auto Centre v. State of U.P. and Others [(2005) 278 ITR 291 (All.)] and Raj Kumar Sirohi v. Commissioner, Income Tax, Ghaziabad Another [Income Tax Appeal No. 370 of 2008, decided on 7-12-2011]. In these judgments, the Court held that the rules of limitation are not to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for legislatively fixed period of time. 6. Under Section 35B(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, an appeal may be filed before the Appellate Tribunal within three months from the date o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elf responsible for not communicating the correct address. In fact there was no other address, as the appellant has continued to provide the same address both in the appeal before the Tribunal as well as in this appeal. 9. The cases cited by the counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the present case, as the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the delay was deliberate. 10. We do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal in dismissing the appeal of the appellant on the ground of delay, which was not sufficiently explained. 11. The grounds raised in the appeal do not raise any substantial questions of law to be considered in the appeal. 12. The Central Excise Customs Appeal is dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
